https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443513 Persistent non-appearance by the appellant or its counsel after earlier restoration can justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution where sufficient opportunities have already been granted. The Tribunal noted that adjournments are discretionary under Section 35C(1A) and that Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules permits dismissal for default, with restoration available only on sufficient cause. Referring to the need to curb dilatory tactics and avoid mechanical adjournments, it held that repeated absence despite notice and prior chances showed failure to prosecute the appeal, and it declined any further adjournment. en-us Fri, 22 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443513 Persistent non-appearance by the appellant or its counsel after earlier restoration can justify dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution where sufficient opportunities have already been granted. The Tribunal noted that adjournments are discretionary under Section 35C(1A) and that Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules permits dismissal for default, with restoration available only on sufficient cause. Referring to the need to curb dilatory tactics and avoid mechanical adjournments, it held that repeated absence despite notice and prior chances showed failure to prosecute the appeal, and it declined any further adjournment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443513